Here we work on the shortest possible self-description of transformap.

Jon: TransforMap is a techno-social architecture to visualize the commons transition.

Adrien: TransforMap is a socio-technical architecture to vizualize local alternatives to the mainstream.

Guiliana: TransforMap is an informal group of people, working towards mapping all alternative initiatives that have been/are beeing created in order to meet the need of people, not for profit.

About 14mmm: We are a collective of individuals and organizations that aim to visualize existing alternative economies and social innovation. Our goal is to provide standards tools and taxonomies to map the socio-ecological transformation happening on the ground. 1

Silke/Guiliana: TransforMap provides an online-platform to map the myriads of alternatives to the dominant economic model. It gives to everybody the opportunity to map all initiatives, communities, projects, worker-owned, self-managed or (at least) democratically organised companies dedicated to meeting people’s needs and serving the common good. It will visualize all places, spaces and networks that work on fostering cooperation and deepening human relationships through (co-)producing, exchanging, contributing and sharing, for a free, fair and sustainable world.
TransforMap invites all the existing mappings to cooperate for an open solution to map the plenty of alternatives based on a common taxonomy, Free Software and a standardised APIs and published under an Open Data License.

@sagaskew@Giuliana : that could be a process the communications circle could drive? (by the way, you could update your pseudo to make it a bit more transparent to find it - you can add your first name to your profile… )

I don’t know if there is a text describing what we are doing, but there is the old name: Mapping all alternatives. In fact we want to map all alternative initiatives that have been/ are beeing created in order to meet the need of people, not for profit.

We need a very broad term, since 14mmm did not depart from the commons movement alone, but from a broader set of movements, which we wanted to reach to not have yet another map that only a part of the alternatives out there use. Even though myself would see many of the initiatives we related to, like CSAs or food cooperatives, as contributing to commoning processes, it is not obvious that the people in these initiatives identify themselves as being part of the commons transition (the singular here makes it even more problematic).

I think strategically and politically it is more appropriate for TransforMap to use a more agnostic term - this was in fact why we excluded last year also degrowth, transition, etc. from our OSM layer/name and opted for the prefix “Transfor” (from transformation, @almereyda certainly knows where this discussion can be traced back). I find changing now the term of our focus is not only counterproductive (since it took very long to reach a consensuns), but also risks putting our project back in a bubble of a part of the movement (which was precisely what we wanted to overcome), because many will not see themselves as part of the commons, but of something else (transition, food sovereignty, degrowth, …), even if it that for us means the commons transition.

"since 14mmm did not depart from the commons movement alone"
Thanks, @gandhiano . This is very strong point and I confess: in terms of public perception I think you are right.
Why do I like the coinage of a “commons transition” nevertheless? Because I tend to see the commons as a paradigm, a worldview, a matrix so to say to structurally enable transition/ solidarity /degrowth / Entschleunigung / p2p / openess and what so ever. What I means is not “commons” as in “the commons movement” (yes, my thinking evolves ;-))
but
Commons as opposed to proprietarian/ dichotomical/ mecanistic/ top-down etc, as an approach, a relatational term and methodology.

But as I said at the beginning. Gualter formulates a concern that needs to be taken into account!